•>s«*« 


F.Gardiner 


r 


"Errors "of  the  Scriptures 


^ 
'*'^\. 


^  OF  PH/^ 


^- 


^ 


# 


---  r-  n\ 


S-iXV 


'.„'  "C 


E 


Y-V 


496  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

3iN  Of  pTM 


i 


f      NOV    7    12 


ARTICLE    IV. 
■"^^fi<Aliiy^>^       "ERRORS"   OF   THE    SCRIPTURES. 

BT   EEV.   FREDERIC   GARDINER,   D.D.,   PROFESSOR   IN   BEBEELET 
DIVINITY  SCHOOL,  MIDDLETOWN,  CONN. 

Since  the  emancipation  of  history,  natural  science,  and 
human  learning  generally  from  the  control  of  the  theologian, 
many  conclusions  have  been  reached  which  are  in  conflict 
with  the  older  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures.  These 
interpretations  have  been  modified,  and  fresh  conflicts  have 
arisen.  Is  interpretation  still  to  be  changed  with  each  fresh 
discovery ;  and,  if  so,  has  the  Bible  any  fixed  meaning  at 
all  ?  Or  is  it  to  be  frankly  conceded  that  the  various  books 
constituting  what  is  known  as  the  Scriptures  were  written 
by  men  at  various  times  and  in  possession  of  various  degrees 
of  truth,  and  so  have  come  down  to  us  with  a  not  incon- 
siderable admixture  of  error  ?  Many  varying  opinions  on 
these  questions  have  each  their  own  honest  and  earnest  advo- 
cates. There  seems  but  one  way  out  of  the  perplexity  ;  and 
that  is  the  scientific  one  —  to  examine  carefully  the  facts, 
and  base  our  theory  exclusively  upon  the  result. 

The  first  fact  to  be  observed  is,  that  the  Scriptures  have 
in  them  both  something  which  is  divine  and  something  which 
is  human.  This  is  so  generally  admitted  that  it  is  not  worth 
while  to  spend  much  time  in  its  re-examination.  That  there 
is  in  them  somewhat  that  is  divine,  and  divine  in  a  higher 
sense  than  Homer  or  Dante  may  be  said  to  have  a  divine 
element,  is  abundantly  shown  by  the  work  which  they  have 
done  and  are  doing  in  the  world ;  that  they  have  also  some- 
what which  is  human  is  sufficiently  obvious  from  the  idiosyn- 
crasies of  the  several  writers,  and  from  the  varying  style 
and  manner  in  which  they  have  delivered  the  message  in- 
trusted to  their  care.  Yet,  inasmuch  as  both  sides  of  this 
fundamental  fact  have  been  called  in  question  by  the  advo- 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  497 

cates  of  opposite  theories,  it  may  be  well  to  point  briefly  to  a 
single  and  satisfactory  proof  of  each  of  them. 

That  tlie  Scriptures  have  in  them  something  which  is 
human  we  conceive  to  be  absolutely  proved  by  the  fact  that 
both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  as  we  have  them,  do 
contain  undeniable  errors.  In  the  New  Testament  errors  of 
copyists — most  of  them  of  little  consequence,  but  still  errors 
-*  have  been  brought  to  light  in  great  abundance.  It  may 
be  replied  that  these  are  matters  which  human  care  can  rec- 
tify, and  that  inspiration  was  never  intended  to  take  away 
fiom  man  the  trouble  of  ascertaining  what  it  really  said. 
This  does  not  matter.  These  errors  remained  in  the  text 
unsuspected  for  centuries,  and  some  of  them  still,  and  prob- 
ably always  will,  remain ;  for  no  competent  critic  would  pre- 
tend to  say  that  the  text  is  in  all  cases  now  definitely  settled, 
or  that  it  is  ever  likely  to  be.  In  the  Old  Testament  manu- 
scripts of  proportionate  antiquity  are  wanting,  and  the  best 
and  oldest  of  the  versions  give  but  a  poor  apparatus  for  the 
criticism  of  the  text.  Nevertheless,  we  may  become  certain: 
by  a  comparison  of  parallel  passages  that  errors  exist  in  one 
or  other  of  them.  For  example,  when  the  census  of  the  cap- 
tives returning  from  the  Babylonian  exile  as  given  in  Ezra 
ii.  and  in  Neh.  vii.  is  compared,  it  becomes  plain  that  there 
must  be  several  errors  in  one  or  the  other  or  in  both  of  them. 
Or  if  we  put  the  statement  in  1  Kings  iv.  26,  that  Solomon 
had  forty  thousand  stalls  of  horses,  by  the  side  of  that  in 
2  Chron.  ix.  25,  that  he  had  four  thousand,  it  is  obvious 
that  one  of  them  has  been  either  multiplied  or  divided  by 
ten.  This  being  admitted,  another  step  may  be  taken,  and 
an  error  assumed  if  absolutely  impossible  statements  are 
found  in  the  text ;  as  when  it  is  said  (2  Sam.  xv.  7)  that 
"  after  forty  years  "  Absalom  did  certain  things  in  furtherance 
of  his  rebellious  plans,  while  it  is  known  from  other  parts  of 
the  story  that  Absalom's  whole  life  was  less  than  forty  years. 
And  this  being  granted,  the  critic  will  not  hesitate  to  apply 
the  same  principle  to  other  statements  having  such  an  ex- 
treme degree  of  improbability  as  to  amount  to  a  practical 

Vol.  XXXVI.  No.  143.  63 


498  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

impossibility ;  as  when  it  is  said  that  the  Philistines  mustered 
to  battle  thirty  thousand  chariots  (1  Sam.  xiii.  6).  The 
errors  thus  far  spoken  of  in  both  Testaments  are,  no  doubt, 
mere  lapsus  of  the  scribes  ;  nevertheless,  there  they  are,  and 
often  there  is  no  other  than  conjectural  means  of  correcting 
them.  They  prove  that  there  are  errors  in  the  Bible,  and 
make  simply  impossible  the  extreme  theory  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion, at  least  as  far  as  the  actual  Scriptures  in  our  possession 
are  concerned.  Only  undeniable  errors  have  been  mentioned, 
that  the  evidence  may  be  clear  that  there  is  a  human  element 
in  the  Bible.     How  far  does  it  extend  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  clear  that  the  Scriptures 
have  in  them  somewhat  that  is  more  than  human  ;  for  they 
contain  truth  which,  outside  of  them,  man  has  never  dis- 
covered for  himself ;  and  if  any  one  is  disposed  to  argue  that 
man  might  ultimately  have  discovered  it,  yet  he  certainly 
did  not,  and  could  not,  at  the  time  at  which  it  was  revealed. 
It  is  not  necessary  here  to  appeal  to  prophecy,  or  to  anything 
else  to  which  a  possible  objection  may  be  made  ;  it  is  enough 
to  refer  to  the  broad  fact  that  the  gospel  has  introduced  into 
the  world  truths  unknown,  or  at  least  unregarded,  before, 
which  when  announced  are  recognized  of  all  men  to  be  true, 
and  has  given  to  these  truths  practical  sanctions  of  sufficient 
power  to  transform  the  institutions,  culture,  and  principles 
of  action  of  those  parts  of  the  world  in  which  it  has  been 
received.  Nothing  but  religion  has  ever  had  such  power 
over  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men,  at  least  on  any  large 
scale  ;  and  no  other  religion  can  compare  with  the  Christian 
in  the  assurance  it  conveys  of  having  been  inspired  from 
on  high.  The  older  revelation  is  distinctly  recognized  and 
made  its  starting-point  by  the  new ;  and  besides  this,  man- 
kind generally  have  not  failed  to  recognize  in  such  parts  as 
some  of  the  Psalms  a  spirit  and  aspirations  breathed  into 
them  from  a  higher  than  human  source,  because  they  com- 
mend themselves  as  in  harmony  with  all  that  is  most  divine, 
and  no  human  compositions,  except  as  based  upon  them, 
have  ever  reached  so  high  a  strain.     The  evidence  in  this 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  499 

case,  being  of  a  higher  kind,  is  necessarily  less  tangible  than 
in  the  former  ;  it  is  sufficient  for  the  present  purpose  that  it 
is  generally  admitted  by  the  common  sense  of  mankind. 

There  are  but  three  possible  theories  in  regard  to  the 
Scriptures :  First,  that  they  are  purely  human ;  secondly, 
that  they  are  purely  divine,  even  to  their  minutest  detail ; 
and  thirdly,  that  they  are  at  once  human  and  divine.  The 
first  two  have  already  appeared  untenable ;  the  third  alone 
remains.  Accepting  this,  a  most  interesting  and  important 
question  arises  as  to  the  relations  or  proportions  of  these 
two  elements  in  the  Bible.  It  is  a  question  which  can  never 
be  entirely  solved,  any  more  than  it  is  possible  to  draw  a 
definite  line  in  the  complex  action  of  the  human  and  the 
divine  spirit.  The  two  elements  are  there,  and  their  union 
has  produced  the  actual  result,  without  the  possibility  of 
assigning  to  each  an  independent  part  of  the  work.  Both 
have  co-operated  in  the  whole.  It  may  be  compared  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  church  in  regard  to  our  Lord,  in  whom  the 
two  natures  are  inseparably  (aSiaipeT&x?)  united,  though 
without  confusion.  Yet  even  in  this  case  there  are  limita- 
tations  in  the  activity  of  either  nature  ;  the  divine  nature 
did  not  prevent  him  as  an  earthly  child  from  growing  in 
wisdom  as  well  as  in  stature,  and  the  human  nature  did  not 
hinder  him  from  speaking  as  never  man  spake.  In  regard 
to  our  present  subject,  it  is  of  great  practical  importance 
to  ascertain,  as  far  as  may  be  possible,  such  limitations  as 
actually  exist. 

An  obvious  limitation  to  the  divine  element  of  the  Bible  is, 
that  the  inspiring  Spirit  has  not  seen  fit  to  do  away  with  the 
manhood  and  individuality  of  the  various  writers.  The  per- 
sonality, the  temperament,  the  habits  of  thought  and  culture 
of  each  particular  writer  are  manifest  in  his  writings.  The 
same  truth  is  taught  by  John,  Paul,  and  James,  but  in  such 
different  guise  that  they  have  been  imagined  to  contradict 
one  another.  No  one  can  fail  to  recognize  the  differences 
in  manner  of  utterance  between  the  courtly  Isaiah,  the 
despondent  Jeremiah,  the  priestly  Ezekiel,  and  the  apoca- 


500  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

Ij'ptic  Daniel.  The  Scriptures  have  certainly  been  given 
iroXvfMepco'i  koI  iroXvTpoTrcD'i.  It  is  one  office  of  these  dif- 
ferences to  adapt  the  Scriptures  to  minds  of  every  class  and 
mode  of  thought ;  it  is  essential  to  the  life-like  character  of 
the  sacred  narrative  ;  and  it  has  become  an  important  means 
of  determining  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  various 
books. 

Our  main  question,  however,  is  with  the  limitations  of  the 
human  element.  It  has  already  appeared  that  there  is  no 
such  limitation  of  this  as  to  prevent  errors  of  the  copyists  in 
the  transmission  of  the  sacred  records.  But  the  writers  lived 
in  times  far  apart,  and  all  of  them  long  gone  by,  and  must 
tl\pmselves  have  shared  in  the  crude  and  erroneous  notions 
of  their  times  concerning  natural  science,  history,  ethnology, 
archaeology,  and  many  other  matters.  Have  these  errors 
become  incorporated,  through  the  human  writers,  in  the 
Bible  itself  ?  or  has  their  humanity  been  so  overshadowed, 
limited,  and  controlled  by  the  inspiring  Spirit  within  them, 
that  the  expression  of  such  errors  has  been  prevented  ?  This 
is  a  question  simply  of  fact,  and  must  be  decided  by  an 
examination  of  the  evidence.  Its  answer  is  important  not 
only  to  our  theory  of  inspiration  and  oilr  principles  of  inter- 
pretation, but  must  determine  the  kind  and  degree  of  reliance 
to  be  placed  upon  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  whether 
they  are,  or  simply  contain,  the  word  of  God.  We  thus  come 
back  again  to  the  discussion  of  the  errors  of  the  Scriptures. 

Before  going  farther,  it  is  well  to  have  a  distinct  under- 
standing of  what  is  meant  by  error.  Shall  that  be  called  an 
error  in  history  which  at  any  particular  time  is  inconsistent 
with  the  historical  knowledge  of  that  time,  such  knowledge 
being  confessedly  imperfect  ?  This  has  been  done  over  and 
over  again.  The  Scripture  history  has  been  repeatedly  pro- 
nounced wrong,  when  further  investigation  has  proved  it 
after  all  to  be  right.  Shall  that  be  deemed  an  error  in  eth- 
nology which  seems  to  contradict  the  best  information  that 
can  be  attained,  when  this  information  is  only  fragmentary 
and  dim ;  or  shall  judgment  be  suspended  until  more  com- 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  501 

plete  data  are  obtained  ?  Such  errors  have  been  repeatedly 
charged,  and  then  the  Scripture  statement  has  been  confirmed 
by  excavations  and  the  decipherment  of  inscriptions.  As  a 
single  instance,  in  archaeology,  ancient  writers  say  that  the 
vine  was  unknown  in  Egypt,  and  yet  Moses  mentions  it ; 
Egyptian  hieroglyphics  have  been  read,  and  it  is  found  that 
Moses  was  right.  Such  reversals  of  too  hasty  judgments 
have  been  compelled  so  often  that  the  accuracy  of  the  Scrip- 
ture writers  in  regard  to  all  matters  within  their  knowledge 
has  come  to  be  generally  acknowledged.  There  is  a  wide- 
spread conviction,  begotten  of  long  experience,  that  in 
matters  of  this  kind  it  is  unsafe  to  assume  an  error  while 
our  own  knowledge  of  the  facts  remains  imperfect,  and,  in 
case  of  any  still  remaining  instances  of  apparent  error,  there 
is  a  presumption  that  a  satisfactory  solution  will  be  reached 
with  the  progress  of  investigation.  This  kind  of  supposed 
error  was  once  the  favorite  ground  of  attack  upon  the  Bible ; 
it  is  now  seldom  mentioned.  It  may  therefore  be  eliminated 
from  the  discussion,  as  constantly  tending  to  vanish,  and 
really  non-existent.  But  this  will  only  show  that  the  Scrip- 
ture writers  were  honest  and  intelligent  men  ;  it  tells  nothing 
of  any  limitation  of  the  human  element  in  their  writings. 

What,  then,  is  meant  by  error?  Something  which  is 
wrong  as  proceeding  from  that  imperfect  knowledge  of  the 
truth  —  whether  moral,  mental,  or  physical  —  which  belonged 
to  the  times  in  which  the  writers  lived,  and  in  which  they 
unquestionably  shared.  Such  errors  are  commonly  alleged 
as  abounding  in  the  Bible  ;  and  if  this  is  true,  there  is  in  this 
respect  no  limitation  of  the  human  side  of  the  Scriptures. 
But  if  it  is  not  true,  then  it  is  obvious  that  there  must  have 
been  such  a  limitation  extending  through  many  ages ;  and 
the  Bible,  consequently,  presents  a  prodigy  quite  equal  to 
any  of  the  miracles  it  records,  and  similarly  makes  a  cor- 
responding demand  upon  our  faith. 

The  most  serious  errors  thus  alleged  are  moral  contra- 
dictions— instances  in  which  words  or  deeds  are  commended, 
or  even  commanded,  especially  in  the  older  Scriptures,  which 


502  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

are  inconsistent  with  the  divine  character  as  made  known  in 
later  revelation.  Some  space  will  be  devoted  to  these  farther 
on.  Meantime  it  is  to  be  considered  that  the  various  writers 
speak  freely  of  whatever  comes  in  their  way,  in  the  lan- 
guage and  according  to  the  ideas  of  their  time,  and  that 
those  ideas  and  that  language  were  often  wrong.  It  is  argued 
by  many,  with  apparent  fairness,  that  this  concludes  errors 
upon  the  Scriptures  ;  because  the  writing  must  be  interpreted 
according  to  what  the  writer  meant  to  say,  and  in  order  to 
this  his  language  must  be  examined  in  the  light  of  the  views 
and  opinions  he  is  known  to  have  held.  Is  this  reasoning 
valid  ? 

Take  a  few  test  cases.  The  Bible  frequently  speaks  of 
the  rising  and  setting  of  the  sun,  and  its  writers  undoubtedly 
supposed  that  the  sun  went  round  the  earth,  and  that  this 
expression  was  literally  true.  It  has  proved  to  be  untrue. 
Are  the  Scriptures  so  committed  to  this  error  that  it  may 
be  cited  as  one  of  the  scientific  errors  of  the  Scriptures  ?  If 
so,  the  case  may  at  once  be  given  up ;  but  if  not,  it  will  cer- 
tainly be  hard  to  cite  a  clearer  instance.  The  language  of 
the  Bible  is  in  opposition  to  the  facts  of  science,  and  the 
writers  who  used  it  were  ignorant  of  those  facts ;  while  the 
Copernican  system  was  under  discussion,  and  before  its  truth 
was  established,  it  was  generally  held  that  the  Bible  was 
committed  to  the  opposite  view.  Here,  then,  are  all  the  ele- 
ments of  what  is  called  an  error ;  it  is  acknowledged  that 
the  statement  is  false,  and  that  the  writers  who  used  it  be- 
lieved it  to  be  true  ;  it  is  notorious  that  when  its  truth  was 
first  called  in  question  the  interpreters  of  the  Bible  with  one 
voice  assured  the  world  that  the  point  had  been  definitely 
pronounced  upon  in  holy  writ,  and  that  no  other  view  could 
be  taken  without  a  flat  contradiction  of  the  Bible.  Neverthe- 
less, the  opposite  view  was  established,  and  nobody's  faith 
was  disturbed.  It  was  found  that  men  still  went  on  speaking 
of  the  rising  and  setting  of  the  sun,  although  acknowledging 
themselves  the  disciples  of  Copernicus.  The  common  sense 
of  mankind  has  settled  it  that  there  is  no  error  here.     The 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  503 

Scripture  writers  merely  used  the  popular  lauguage  of  their 
times,  and  of  all  times,  in  alluding  to  the  natural  phenomena 
around  them ;  Galileo  himself  would  still  have  used  the 
same  language.  This  is  a  typical  case,  and  may  be  referred 
to  again. 

Let  us  take  another  instance.  Moses  speaks  of  the  coney 
(^Hyrax  Syriacus)  as  unclean,  although  he  chews  the  cud, 
because  he  does  not  divide  the  hoof  (Lev.  xi.  5),  and  so  of 
some  other  animals ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  swine  (ver.  7) 
is  accounted  unclean,  because  he  does  not  chew  the  cud, 
although  he  divides  the  hoof.  All  this  is  wrong.  The  coney 
does  not  really  chew  the  cud,  but  merely  has  a  way  of  moving 
his  lower  jaw  which  gives  him  the  appearance  of  doing  so ; 
and  the  swine  does  not  divide  the  hoof,  because,  anatomically, 
he  has  four  toes.  In  the  same  connection  it  is  said  (ver.  4) 
that  the  camel  chews  the  cud,  but  does  not  divide  the  hoof  ; 
but  anatomically  he  does  divide  the  hoof,  only  he  has  a  large 
pad  which  comes  down  behind  the  hoof,  and  on  which  he 
treads  ;  so  that  the  description  of  Moses,  while  right  to  the 
eye,  is  scientifically  wrong.  Li  general,  this  whole  distinc- 
tion is  wrongly  taken.  Chewing  the  cud  and  dividing  the 
hoof  are  correlated  developments,  so  that  all  animals  which 
do  the  one  do  the  other  also.  Now  was  this  an  error  on  the 
part  of  Moses  ;  and  is  it  an  error  of  the  Bible  ?  Technically 
and  superficially,  of  course  it  is,  but  not  really.  Moses  him- 
self may  very  likely  have  been  l)ut  an  indifferent  comparative 
anatomist ;  but  this  cannot  be  determined  simply  from  this  use 
of  language.  He  was  giving  a  law  for  popular  observance, 
and  must  necessarily  mark  his  distinctions  according  to  ap- 
pearances, or  expose  the  people  to  be  continually  involved  in 
transgression.  It  is  of  no  consequence  at  all  what  was  the 
extent  or  the  deficiency  of  his  own  private  information.  The 
exigencies  of  the  time  and  the  circumstances  required  that 
the  law  should  be  expressed  as  it  is,  and  it  would  have  failed 
of  its  purpose  had  it  been  set  forth  in  the  technicalities  of 
modern  science.  Shall  we  then  say  that  such  errors  were 
unavoidable,  and  therefore   Scripture  must   contain  errors 


5G4  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July> 

which  betray  the  imperfection  of  human  knowledge,  and 
show  that  the  human  element  was  not  so  limited  as  to  pre- 
vent error  ?  Or  shall  we  conclude  that  before  the  highest 
tribunal  these  are  really  no'  errors  at  all,  but  merely  the 
condescension  of  infinite  knowledge  in  making  itself  com- 
prehensible to  men  of  limited  information  ?  For  ourselves, 
we  prefer  the  latter  alternative,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Cuvier 
or  Owen,  or  even  Mr.  Huxley  himself,  with  whatever  superior 
knowledge,  must  still  have  used  substantially  the  same  lan- 
guage, if  giving  a  law  under  similar  circumstances,  and  with 
the  design  of  having  it  observed.  But  really  the  question  is 
merely  one  of  words,  whichever  we  choose ;  since  if  these 
are  to  be  called  errors,  they  are  yet  errors  which  indicate 
neither  faulty  knowledge  nor  the  necessary  restriction  of  the 
source  of  the  Scriptures  to  the  human  imperfection  of  the 
period  in  which  they  were  written. 

Once  more,  to  take  an  instance  which  has  been  the  occasion 
of  endless  discussion  —  the  cosmogony  of  Genesis.  Here 
both  the  main  fact  and  the  subordinate  details  are  necessa- 
rily beyond  the  scope  of  human  observation ;  and  both  the 
one  and  the  other  must  either  have  been  revealed,  or  else 
must  have  been  the  conclusion  of  speculative  thought.  It  is 
not  uncommon  to  explain  one  of  them  in  one  way,  and  the 
other  in  the  other  —  to  say  that  the  main  fact  is  that  all 
things  originate  from  a  divine  source ;  this  was  revealed  and 
intended  to  be  taught ;  but  it  was  left  to  the  writer  to  com- 
municate this  as  best  he  could ;  and  he  actually  did  commu- 
nicate it  as  best  he  could,  in  accordance  with  such  knowledge 
as  he  had,  or  in  such  way  as  he  could  best  imagine,  and 
after  the  lapse  of  several  thousand  years  his  information  has 
proved  to  be  faulty.  Now,  it  must  be  admitted  that,  under 
any  possible  exegesis,  the  account  itself,  if  pressed  to  minutiae, 
is  scientifically  inaccurate.  The  word  "  day  "  may  be  under- 
stood (if  this  be  exegetically  allowable)  of  periods  never  so 
indefinite,  or  it  may  be  taken  to  indicate  only  a  series  of  pic- 
torial visions  ;  the  phrases  "  Let  the  earth  bring  forth"  and 
*'  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  "  may  be  taken,  with  Augustine 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  505 

and  many  others,  in  a  causative  sense,  in  accordance  with  a 
theory  of  spontaneous  generation  ;  still,  the  palpable  fact 
will  remain  that  the  introduction  of  the  higher  forms  of 
vegetation  upon  our  planet  was  not  completed  before  animal 
life  began,  as  is  certainly  implied  by  the  story  of  the  third 
and  fifth  days  in  Genesis,  nor  were  the  highest  developments 
of  aquatic  life  known  before  terrestrial  animals  appeared.^ 
Here,  then,  as  in  the  former  cases,  there  is  error.  It  is  not 
sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to  say  that  this  error  is  in 
a  secondary  detail,  and  is  comparatively  unimportant.  It  is 
necessary  to  ascertain  whether  the  detail  containing  the  error 
is  the  outgrowth  of  human  ignorance,  or  whether  it  belongs 
to  the  divine  revelation.  There  are  reasons  for  thinking 
that  it  could  not  have  come  from  merely  human  reasoning 
or  imagination.  It  is  too  good,  it  is  too  nearly  scientifically 
accurate,  to  admit  fairly  of  this  supposition.  Among  all  the 
cosmogonies  of  which  we  know  it  is  unique  in  this  respect. 
The  best  accounts  of  the  creation  found  elsewhere  have  prob- 
ably either  come  originally  from  the  same  source,  or  have 
been  modified  by  this.  The  nearest  approach  to  it  is  the 
Etruscan,  of  which,  at  present,  we  know  only  through  the 
account  given  of  it  by  a  Christian  writer  of  the  tenth  or 
eleventh  century ;  ^  and  this,  such  as  it  is,  differs  exactly  in 
the  point  of  being  less  in  harmony  with  the  teachings  of 
science.  The  Chaldean  legends  of  the  creation  —  not  to 
speak  of  their  being  overlaid  and  interpenetrated  with  a  mass 
of  mythological  absurdity  —  have  plainly  been  derived  origi- 

1  It  is  scarcely  worth  while  to  stay  to  notice  some  alleged  minor  errors,  such 
as  that  God  is  said  to  have  set  the  sun  and  moon  in  the  firmament,  as  if  he  had 
permanently  fastened  them  to  a  solid  vault.  There  is  no  proof  whatever  that 
the  Hebrews  shared  in  the  conception  of  the  classical  nations  of  the  expanse  (such 
is  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word)  above  being  solid  ;  but  whether  they  did 
so  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  Moses,  or  any  one  else  of  sufficient  intelligence  to 
have  written  this  narrative,  must  have  known  of  the  motion  of  the  moon  rela- 
tively to  the  sun.  He  could  not  therefore  have  meant  that  both  were  fixed  or 
attached  to  a  solid  foundation,  but  must  necessarily  have  used  the  Hebrew  word 
in  its  ordinary  sense  of  put  or  placed,  and  not  in  the  technical  meaning  of  the 
English  word  set. 

■^  Suidas,  Lex.  s.  v.  Tv^^rfvla. 
Vol.  XXXVI.  No.  143.  64 


506  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

• 

nally  from  the  same  source  with  the  account  in  Genesis,  and 
cannot  therefore  help  us  to  account  for  its  truth.  Even 
Knobel,  after  recounting  these  and  various  other  cosmogonies, 
says :  "Of  all  these  the  prize  belongs  by  universal  ac- 
knowledgment to  the  simple  and  natural,  dignified  and  sub- 
lime Hebrew  narrative."  It  is  so  difficult  to  suppose  that 
such  a  cosmogony  should  have  been  the  result  of  merely 
human  speculation  in  the  remote  ages  to  which  it  belongs, 
that  it  would  be  much  easier  to  consider  it  a  divine  revelation 
throughout,  but  for  the  errors  mentioned  above.  Let  us, 
then,  look  more  narrowly  at  those  errors  before  deciding  that 
they  are  inconsistent  with  a  revelation  from  the  Omniscient. 
The  general  order  of  creation  is  given  with  entire  accuracy 
—  first  chaos,  then  light,  then  a  fluid  mass,  then  a  separation 
of  the  dry  land  from  the  waters,  then  life  beginning  in  its 
lowest  vegetative  forms  and  advancing  through  aquatic  animal 
life  to  terrestrial,  all  finally  culminating  in  the  appearance 
of  man.  The  celestial  bodies,  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  are 
mentioned  just  when  they  must  have  first  shone  through  the 
murky  atmosphere  of  the  cooling  earth.  The  only  difficulty 
is,  that  when  the  beginning  of  vegetation  has  been  mentioned 
its  story  is  continued  without  break  to  its  culmination ;  and 
the  same  thing  is  done,  also,  with  marine  life.  Is  there  any 
way  of  accounting  for  this  consistently  with  the  supposition 
that  the  whole  story  emanated  from  omniscience  ?  We  think 
it  is  not  merely  accounted  for,  but  necessitated  by  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  revelation.  It  must  be  given  in  such  wise 
as  to  be  comprehended  by  a  rude  people,  and  therefore  must 
be  given  without  the  use  of  scientific  terms ;  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  proportion  of  revelation  it  must  be  given 
very  briefly.  Its  purpose  is  not  to  teach  science,  but  to  show 
that  all  things  come  from  God.  Whether  the  revelation 
was  made  by  vision,  or  by  whatever  other  method,  its  object 
could  hardly  be  otherwise  accomplished  than  in  the  way  it 
has  been,  by  mentioning  in  succession  the  great  features  of 
the  world,  and  saying  that  God  made  each  of  them.  To 
have  said  that  he  made  first  the  humbler  forms  of  vegetation, 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  507 

particularizing  them ;  and  then  the  humbler  forms  of  animal 
life,  particularizing  these  too ;  and  then  the  higher  forms, 
first  of  the  one,  and  then  of  the  other ;  and  lastly  the  highest 
of  each  of  them  in  succession,  would  but  have  introduced 
prolixity  and  unnecessary  confusion  of  mind.  No  wise  man 
now  would  be  likely  to  adopt  such  a  method  of  teaching  his 
child.  He  would  tell  him  that  God  made  all  things  —  the 
earth  and  the  sky,  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  ;  he  made  the 
grass,  too,  and  the  trees ;  the  fishes  and  the  birds  and  the 
animals ;  and  last  of  all  he  made  man.  This  is  precisely 
what  the  Omniscient  taught  those  who  were  in  their  spiritual 
infancy.  In  this  teaching  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  error 
of  imperfect  knowledge,  but  only  of  an  adaptation  to  the  exi- 
gencies under  which  the  revelation  must  be  made.  It  leads 
men  at  once  to  the  great  features  of  the  truth ;  it  leads  them 
to  the  exact  detail,  as  far  as  they  were  capable  of  being  led 
at  the  time  ;  its  apparent  error  is  simply  from  its  generality 
and  its  brevity.  To  have  been  more  precisely  accurate, 
merely  to  teach  a  scientific  detail  which  man  in  due  time 
could  and  would  find  out  for  himself,  would  have  required 
a  prolixity  unsuited  to  the  occasion. 

It  may  be  said,  in  this  and  several  other  cases,  that  the 
result  is  the  same,  whether  we  suppose  the  statements  to  be 
those  of  imperfect  human  knowledge,  or  of  omniscience 
adapting  itself  to  human  ignorance ;  in  either  case,  the  im- 
perfect statement  remains.  In  a  certain  sense  this  is  true, 
and  is  a  necessity  of  any  progressive  revelation,  and,  in  fact, 
of  any  revelation,  to  men  of  limited  knowledge ;  but  the 
view  to  be  taken  of  the  Scriptures  depends  greatly  on  whether 
we  consider  this  imperfection  the  result  of  man's  speculation 
or  of  God's  condescension.  In  the  one  case,  we  have  the 
human  element  of  the  Bible  without  limitation,  and  can  rely 
upon  it  only  in  so  far  as  man's  wisdom  is  trustworthy ;  in 
the  other,  we  have  the  teaching  of  Omniscience  itself,  and 
only  need  to  take  into  account  that  he  taught  men  according 
as  they  were  able  to  bear.  "We  think  that  the  cosmogony 
of  Genesis,  to  say  the  least,  is  consistent  with  the  latter 
hypothesis. 


508  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

The  three  examples  now  given  are  enough  to  show  how 
all  alleged  errors  of  this  kind  may  be  treated,  i.e.  all  errors 
which  are  sometimes  considered  as  the  result  of  imperfect 
knowledge,  and  especially  those  which  come  within  the  scope 
of  natural  science.  They  are  due  not  to  the  human  imper- 
fection of  the  writers,  but  to  that  of  the  readers ;  they  are 
simply  the  necessary  limitation  of  revelation  in  making  itself 
intelligible  to  those  to  whom  it  was  given.  They  are  con- 
sistent, therefore,  with  the  view  that  all  the  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  is  controlled  by  infinite  knowledge,  and  that  the 
human  writers  have  been  so  limited  as  to  prevent  their  intro- 
ducing into  them  the  errors  of  their  own  private  notions. 
Not,  of  course,  that  the  Omniscient  can  be  convicted  of  im- 
perfect knowledge,  but  that  for  man's  sake, he  has  seen  fit  to 
use  such  language  and  such  incomplete  statements  as  man 
has  been  able  to  receive,  and  which  should  ultimately  become 
the  means,  through  the  spiritual  education  they  afforded 
him,  of  enabling  man  himself,  in  some  degree,  to  fill  out 
what  was  insufficient  in  them. 

This  leads  to  the  consideration  of  another  class  of  errors 
with  which  the  Bible  is  charged.  From  its  earliest  to  its 
latest  books  there  is  evident  a  gradually  growing  conception 
of  the  spirituality  and  infinity  of  the  Father  of  all.  The 
representation  of  God  as  walking  in  the  garden  in  the  cool 
of  the  day,  and  inquiring  of  guilty  man  where  he  might  be 
found,  would  be  out  of  harmony  with  the  New  Testament, 
and  would  clash  with  the  way  in  which  the  Divine  Being  is 
there  spoken  of.  Hence  it  is  argued  that  the  Old  Testament 
conception  of  God  is  a  human  and  a  false  one ;  that  it  repre- 
sents him  as  an  exaggerated  man,  changing  his  plans  and 
repenting  of  what  he  has  done,  pleased  with  one  action  of 
his  creatures,  grieved  with  another,  and  frequently  using 
purely  human  methods  and  contrivances  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  his  purposes.  It  may  be  remarked,  in  passing,  that 
the  same  objection  applies  —  in  a  less  degree,  indeed,  but 
still  in  its  essential  point  —  to  the  New  Testament  also,  and 
to  all  human  discourse  about  the  infinite ;  for  this  must  of 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  509 

necessity  be  expressed  chiefly  in  concrete  and  figurative 
terms.  But  this  remark  does  not  meet  the  difficulty ;  for, 
whatever  be  the  necessities  of  human  language,  there  is  a 
manifest  progress  in  the  course  of  the  long  ages  during  which 
the  composition  of  the  various  books  of  the  Bible  was  going 
on.  During  these  ages  man's  conception  of  God  was  purified 
and  exalted,  and,  as  this  change  is  reflected  in  the  books  of 
the  various  ages,  it  is  easy  to  attribute  the  change  in  the 
books  themselves  to  the  improved  conceptions  of  the  writers. 
On  this  supposition,  whatever  is  imperfect  and  erroneous 
belongs  to  the  writers,  and  gives  evidence  that  the  human 
element  has  not  been  so  limited  as  to  prevent  the  introduction 
of  error. 

An  entirely  different  view  may  also  be  taken  of  these 
errors,  referring  them  to  the  omniscient  Source  of  the  Scrii> 
tures ;  and  if  this  view  becomes  on  examination  probable,  or 
even  possible,  the  basis  of  any  sure  inferences  from  the 
opposite  view  will  be  taken  away.  If  it  can  be  still  farther 
shown  that  even  the  earlier  scriptural  conceptions  of  the 
Deity  embrace  features  which  were  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
men  of  the  time,  or  of  any  time,  except  as  they  have  been 
taught  by  revelation,  then  it  will  be  clear  that  the  repre- 
sentations, as  a  whole,  come  from  a  divine  source,  and  cannot 
be  considered  as  errors  at  all,  except  in  the  same  sense  as 
those  already  considered.  An  examination  of  the  facts  is 
likely  to  lead  to  this  last  conclusion. 

Nothing  can  be  more  true  than  the  assertion  of  modern 
philosophy  that  the  Infinite  Being  is,  and  must  always  have 
been,  in  his  own  ultimate  essence,  unknowable  to  finite  man. 
"Were  it  conceivable  that  he  should  reveal  himself  as  he  is, 
the  revelation  would  have  no  value  or  significance  for  us, 
because  we  could  not  understand  it.  Any  useful  revelation 
must  be  in  terms  adapted  to  the  human  understanding,  and 
hence  must  be  partial  and  imperfect,  and,  in  that  sense, 
erroneous.  Nevertheless,  it  may  be  of  the  utmost  value,  not 
because  of  the  side  which  is  imperfect,  but  because  of  that 
partial  truth  which  man  could  not  otherwise  attain.     And 


510  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

this  being  attained  leads  on  to  ever  higher  and  higher,  though 
still  imperfect,  truth,  and  meantime  enables  man  to  guide 
his  life  in  far  closer  correspondence  to  the  divine  will  than 
would  otherwise  be  practicable.  The  possibility  of  a  revela- 
tion is  here  assumed,  although  this  is  not  the  place  to  inquire 
how  it  is  possible.  The  personal  conviction  of  the  writer  is 
clear  that  it  can  only  be  made  through  a  Mediator — that  the 
infinite  and  the  finite,  the  divine  and  the  human,  are  incom- 
mensurable terms,  which  can  only  be  brought  together  in 
one  who  partakes  of  the  nature  of  both,  and  hence  that  the 
incarnation  is  the  fundamental  fact  in  the  possibility  of 
revelation.  But  however  this  may  be,  we  assume  that  a 
revelation  exists,  and  we  are  concerned  only  to  know  what 
are  the  limitations  upon  its  human  side.  Revelation  must 
be  given  in  terms  adapted  to  human  comprehension  in  order 
to  be  intelligible  ;  and  hence  it  follows  that  it  must  be  given 
at  various  times,  in  terms  adapted  to  the  varying  capacities 
of  those  times.  In  the  spiritual  infancy  of  the  race  it  must 
be  vastly  more  anthropomorphic  than  is  necessary  after 
thousands  of  years  of  continued  spiritual  education.  And 
after  the  higher  revelation  has  been  given,  it  will  still  be 
desirable  that  the  earlier,  and  in  this  respect  lower,  shall 
remain  for  the  benefit  of  those  not  yet  prepared  for  the 
higher  ;  and  this  is  a  condition  through  which  all  pass  in  the 
course  of  their  lives,  and  in  which,  perhaps,  some  remain 
permanently  fixed. 

If,  therefore,  the  fact  be  accepted  that  God  is  what  in 
the  imperfection  of  our  language  we  are  fain  to  describe  as 
merciful  and  loving,  it  follows  that  in  any  revelation  of  him- 
self he  will  not  reveal  himself  perfectly,  —  that  is,  absolutely 
truly,  —  but  only  partially,  as  man  is  able  to  bear  it ;  and 
this  must  be,  in  a  certain  sense,  untruly  or  erroneously. 
Revelation  must,  therefore,  be  marked  in  different  ages  by 
different  degrees  of  this  imperfection  or  so-called  erroneous- 
ness  of  teaching.  Men  must  be  trained  through  inferior 
conceptions  —  such  conceptions  as  it  was  possible  to  awaken 
in  them  without  violating  the  laws  of  their  nature  —  to  enable 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  511 

them  to  rise  to  liigher  ones ;  they  must  be  appealed  to 
through  motives  and  feelings  they  can  understand,  before 
they  can  be  led  up  to  those  which  at  first  they  could  not 
understand.  It  was  necessary  to  insist  long  and  earnestly 
upon  monotheism  before  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  could  be 
safely  taught.  It  is  therefore  possible  that  what  at  first 
sight  seems  to  belong  to  the  faulty  conceptions  of  the  human 
writers  of  the  Bible  may  really  be  a  part  of  the  progressive 
divine  teaching.  As  far  as  yet  considered,  indeed,  it  might 
belong  to  either ;  and  since  the  growing  capacity  of  man  for 
higher  and  purer  revelation  is  parallel  with  his  actually 
higher  and  purer  conception  of  God,  we  might  be  uncertain 
to  which  of  them  to  refer  this  progress.  It  is  necessary, 
then,  to  inquire  if  these  imperfect  revelations  have  any  char- 
acteristics which  indisputably  bespeak  a  divine  origin.  There 
need  be  no  difficulty  in  finding  them. 

One  of  the  most  striking  features  in  the  scriptural  repre- 
sentation of  the  Divine  Being  from  first  to  last,  and  all 
along  with  these  anthropomorphic  representations,  is,  that 
no  man  shall  see  God  and  live  ;  that  he  dwells  in  light  which 
no  man  can  approach  unto ;  that  he  is  not  a  man  that  he 
should  repent,  but  that  with  him  is  neither  variableness  nor 
shadow  of  turning ;  that  no  man  by  searching  can  find  him 
out;  and  many  like  expressions.  Such  teaching  is  scattered 
through  books  by  the  most  various  writers,  and  at  great  dis- 
tances of  time,  and  makes  it  plain  that  anthropomorphic 
representations  are  also  used  in  them  only  as  of  necessity, 
and  for  man's  sake.  That  there  might  be  no  real  misun- 
derstanding, the  declarations  just  mentioned  are  interspersed 
with  these  representations,  showing  as  clearly  as  the  lan- 
guage of  any  modern  philosophy  that  the  Scriptures  under- 
stood God,  in  his  absolute  essence,  to  be  unknowable  and 
unapproachable  by  his  creature.  Now,  this  was  not  a  doc- 
trine of  human  invention.  In  the  philosophies  of  antiquity 
it  appears  only  in  their  profoundest  treatises,  never  in  popular 
teaching  ;  and  it  does  not  appear  at  all  until  long  ages  after 
it  had  been  announced  in  the  Scriptures.     Moreover,  it  never 


512  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

appears  with  the  fulness  and  distinctness  of  enunciation 
which  it  has  in  the  Bible.  Here,  then,  is  the  clear  mark  of 
a  divine  source  —  the  sign-manual  of  more  than  human 
knowledge ;  and  this  is  so  interwoven  with  the  other  repre- 
sentations that  they  cannot  be  disentangled.  Thus  the  doubt 
is  solved,  and  what  might  otherwise  have  been  considered  as 
the  result  of  human  imperfection  is  shown  to  be  the  effect  of 
divine  condescension.  This  class  of  errors,  then,  like  those 
which  have  gone  before,  are  in  no  other  sense  really  errors 
than  as  they  are  imperfect  representations  of  tlie  truth, 
adapted  to  the  wants  and  capacities  of  those  to  whom  they 
were  given  ;  and  at  the  same  time  they  are  so  connected 
with  other  statements  as  to  show  that  there  was  a  limitation 
put  on  the  expression  of  the  human  notions  of  the  writer,  so 
that  he  was  to  teach,  on  the  whole,  what  was  beyond  the 
reach  of  merely  human  thought. 

There  is  another  kind  of  alleged  error,  of  a  more  technical 
kind,  which  must  be  considered  here,  that  it  may  not  be  in 
the  way  farther  on.  There  is  frequently  in  the  different 
books  a  duplicate  account  of  the  same  transaction,  and  these 
do  not  always  agree ;  and  there  is  sometimes  in  a  later  book 
a  quotation  or  a  reference  which  does  not,  at  least  upon  its 
face,  answer  exactly  to  the  original.  Such  divergences  are 
often  disposed  of  by  the  remark  that  they  arise  simply  from 
the  individualities  of  the  writers,  their  differences  of  recol- 
lection, their  habits  of  mind,  their  misunderstandings  of 
what  they  read,  and  their  mental  prepossessions  ;  just  as 
similar  divergences  are  seen  in  the  testimony  of  conscientious 
witnesses  in  our  courts  of  justice,  or  in  varying  reports  of 
conversation  or  of  public  addresses.  It  is  certainly  unneces- 
sary to  eliminate  this  human  mould  of  the  Scriptures  alto- 
gether. It  constitutes,  e.g.  one  of  the  peculiar  charms  of  the 
fourfold  portraiture  of  our  Lord  in  the  Gospels.  It  is  im- 
portant, nevertheless,  to  know  its  limits  ;  it  is  important  to 
know  if  actual  errors,  even  in  matters  of  secondary  impor- 
tance, do  occur,  so  that  we  cannot  be  better  assured  of  the 
truth  of  the  casual  statements  of  the  Bible  than  of  those  of 


1879.]     .  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  513 

other  historians  ;  or  whether,  whatever  be  the  individual 
coloring  of  the  narrative,  we  can  yet  rely  upon  every  positive 
statement  of  the  sacred  books  as  absolutely  true.  In  other 
words,  the  question  here  comes  up,  as  in  other  cases,  whether 
these  alleged  errors  are  due  to  the  imperfect  knowledge  and 
faulty  ideas  of  the  human  writers,  or  whether  inspiration  has 
so  watched  over  and  guarded  them  that  they  have  been 
restrained  from  any  even  trivial  misstatements.  It  is,  of 
course,  impossible  to  examine  here  all  debatable  passages. 
Only  a  few  of  the  more  vexed  and  difficult  cases  can  be 
selected  as  examples  of  the  whole. 

The  general  principle  in  the  comparison  of  seemingly  incon- 
sistent accounts  in  ancient  documents  is  the  same  as  is  now 
observed  in  regard  to  testimony  in  any  modern  court  of  justice 
—  before  pronouncing  either  of  them  false,  it  is  to  be  seen 
whether  there  is  not  some  rational  and  likely  hypothesis  in 
regard  to  the  circumstances  which  will  bring  both  accounts  into 
harmony.  Or,  if  this  fails,  it  is  to  be  asked  whether  each  wit- 
ness must  not  have  been  aware  of  the  facts  stated  by  the  other, 
and  yet,  without  other  motive  than  a  desire  to  tell  the  truth, 
has  given  a  different  version  of  them.  In  the  latter  case 
there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  both  are  true,  although  at  our 
distance  from  the  events  we  cannot  suggest  any  hypothesis 
which  will  bring  them  into  consistency.  The  discrepancies 
between  the  evangelists  have  so  long  attracted  attention  that 
little  need  be  said  of  them.  Especially  in  regard  to  the 
varying  accounts  of  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  long  the 
stalking  horse  of  infidelity,  it  is  worth  while  to  remember 
that  West,  a  few  generations  ago,  undertook  to  demonstrate 
from  his  deistical  stand-point  the  falsity  of  the  Gospels,  by 
showing  their  absolute  inconsistency  in  this  narrative ;  he 
examined  them  with  a  clear  head  and  ain  honest  heart,  and 
the  result  was  his  famous  treatise  on  the  resurrection,  and 
his  own  conversion  into  a  Christian  believer. 

We  select,  as  one  of  the  most  apparently  contradictory 
narratives,  the  healing  of  the  blind  man,  or  men,  near  Jericho. 
It  has  long  been  recognized  that  there  is  no  real  difficulty 

Vol.  XXXVI.  No.  143.  65 


514  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July. 

hero,  as  in  several  other  cases,  in  the  mention  of  two  blind 
men  by  one  of  the  evangelists  (Matt.  xx.  30),  while  the 
others  (Mark  x.  46 ;  Luke  xviii.  35)  speak  only  of  the  one, 
Bartimaeus,  who  especially  attracted  attention.  But  both 
Matthew  and  Mark  expressly  say  that  the  event  occurred 
when  they  had  departed  from  Jericho,  while  Luke  is  equally 
definite  in  saying  that  it  was  when  Jesus  was  drawing  near 
to  the  city  (iv  tw  iyyl^eiv  avrov  et?  'lepi-^^co^.  All  attempts 
to  explain  the  latter  phrase  as  meaning  only  while  they  ivere 
near  must  be  given  up  as  strained  and  unsupported  by  usage. 
But  it  is  altogether  likely  that  our  Lord  on  this  journey 
spent  several  days  at  Jericho,  and  that,  as  was  his  custom  at 
Jerusalem,  and  as  is  still  the  common  custom  in  visiting 
Eastern  cities,  he  slept  in  the  country,  and  came  daily  into 
the  city.  This  supposition,  which  is  not  only  possible,  but 
in  itself  probable,  removes  the  whole  difficulty.  Matthew 
and  Mark  speak  of  the  miracle  as  wrought  when  he  had  gone 
out  from  the  city ;  Luke,  more  particularly,  as  exactly  when 
he  was  entering  it  again  on  his  morning  return.  The  various 
records  of  Peter's  denials  of  his  Master,  and  other  seeming 
discrepancies,  are  all  brought  into  accord  by  even  more  simple 
suppositions ;  but  this  one  example  must  here  suffice.  An 
intelligent  exegesis,  seeking  harmony,  will  always  find  it 
without  strain. 

The  most  difficult  case  of  apparent  disagreement  between 
the  Gospels  and  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament  is  in 
the  account  of  the  death  of  Judas.  Mattliew  (xxvii.  5)  says 
that  he  hung  himself;  Peter,  in  a  discourse  to  his  fellow- 
disciples  recorded  by  Luke  (Acts  i.  18)  gives  a  different 
version  of  what  happened.  The  devices  often  used  for 
reconciling  the  two  stories  must  be  recognized  as  somewhat 
strained ;  no  simple  and  entirely  satisfactory  suggestion  in 
explanation  of  their  difference  has  yet  been  made.  But 
this  we  do  know :  At  the  time  of  Peter's  discourse  the 
two  disciples  had  been  constantly  together  since  the  occur- 
rence, some  six  weeks  before,  and  they  must  have  talked 
together,  often  and  minutely,  over  all  the  circumstances  con- 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  515 

nected  with  the  betrayal  and  death  of  their  Master.  Their 
knowledge  of  all  the  facts  was  held  entirely  in  common. 
Matthew  was  present,  and  gave  at  least  silent  assent  to  what 
Peter  said,  and  neither  of  them  could  have  had  any  object  in 
perverting  the  facts  which  are  mentioned  by  both  of  them 
quite  incidentally.  Under  these  circumstances  there  is  but 
one  tenable  conclusion  —  that  there  were  still  some  additional 
facts  (though  at  this  distance  of  time  we  may  not  be  able  to 
guess  what  they  were)  which,  if  known,  would  fully  explain 
the  discrepancy. 

In  the  citation  of  the  Old  Testament  it  is  by  no  means 
necessary  to  suppose  that  the  New  Testament  writers  always 
intended  to  quote  it  according  to  its  original  meaning.  Their 
minds  were  full  of  its  language,  and  it  was  natural  for  them 
to  express  what  they  had  to  say,  just  as  men  do  now,  in  terms 
with  which  they  had  been  familiar  from  childhood,  without  a 
thought  that  the  passage  had  originally  the  application  given 
to  it  in  their  quotation.  They  would  also  sometimes  see  an 
application  of  what  had  been  said  of  events  long  gone  by  to 
occurrences  of  their  own  time  too  a  propos  to  pass  unnoticed, 
just  as  is  done  in  our  own  day  ;  and  in  such  cases  they  might 
very  well  introduce  their  application  by  saying,  "  It  has  come 
to  pass  according  as  it  is  written,"  or  "  Thus  was  this  scrip- 
ture fulfilled,"  without  imagining  that  the  old  scripture  itself 
looked  to  any  such  application.  Passages  of  this  kind,  how- 
ever, are  fewer  than  is  sometimes  supposed,  and  the  common 
sense  of  mankind  is  sufficient  to  deal  with  them. 

There  are  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  also  cited 
argumentatively,  and  it  is  alleged  that  in  some  of  these  the 
argument  is  faulty  through  a  misinterpretation  of  the  quota- 
tion. These  will  be  considered  presently,  in  connection  with 
alleged  errors  of  reasoning.  Meantime  there  are  several 
quotations  with  which  fault  is  found  on  other  grounds. 

Perhaps  the  most  classic  instances  are  in  the  speech  of 
Stephen  (Acts  vii.).  In  discussing  these  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered who  he  was — "  aman  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost " 
and  "  of  power,"  and  of  a  wisdom  that  his  adversaries  could  not 


516  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

resist  (Acts  vi.  5-10).  He  was  familiar  with  the  history  of 
his  people,  and  spoke  to  an  audience  fully  competent  and 
well  disposed  to  trip  him  up  in  any  slip.  His  object  was  not 
to  instruct  them  in  their  history,  but  to  prove  from  its  fa- 
miliar facts  that  they  sinned  in  rejecting  Jesus  as  their  Mes- 
siah. Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
unlikely  that  he  would  have  made  any  errors.  If  any  state- 
ments appear  to  us  wrong,  after  the  lapse  of  eighteen 
hundred  years,  the  presumption  is  strong  that  Stephen  knew 
more  about  the  facts  than  we  do.  Yet  this  presumption  is 
only  a  priori;  the  facts  must  be  taken  as  they  are.  Almost 
his  first  statement  is  that  God  called  Abraham  "  when  he 
was  in  Mesopotamia,  before  he  dwelt  in  Charran " ;  and, 
accordingly,  the  English  Bible  reads,  in  Gen.  xii.  1 :  "  Now 
the  Lord  had  said  unto  Abram,  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country," 
etc. ;  but  the  critics  say  that  this  is  an  incorrect  translation, 
made  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  passage  into  accord 
with  Stephen.  We  doubt  this.  The  Hebrew  certainly  does 
not  express  the  pluperfect,  because  it  has  no  form  for  that 
tense,  and  must  depend  upon  the  context  for  its  indication. 
We  think  such  indication  is  found  here,  especially  in  the 
mention  of  the  country  and  kindred  and  father's  house  which 
Abram  was  to  leave,  and  which  were  certainly  not  left  in 
Haran  ;  and  hence  we  consider  the  English  Bible  right  in  its 
translation.  But  waiving  this,  there  is  the  distinct  statement 
in  XV.  7  :  "  I  am  the  Lord,  that  brought  thee  out  of  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees,"  so  that  Stephen  had  good  authority  for  what  he 
said.  A  more  serious  difficulty  is  found  a  little  farther  on, 
where  he  states  (ver.  16)  that  the  twelve  patriarchs  were 
buried  "  in  the  sepulchre  that  Abraham  bought  for  a  sum  of 
money  of  the  sons  Emmor."  Now,  we  know  that  Abraham 
bought  a  cave  for  a  sepulchre  at  Mamre,  but  Joseph  and  his 
brethren  were  not  buried  there ;  we  know,  also,  that  Jacob 
bought  a  piece  of  land  of  the  sons  of  Hamor  near  Shechem, 
and  Joseph  was  buried  there.  Is  it  possible  that  Stephen,  in 
the  haste  of  his  utterance,  mixed  the  two  facts,  and  attributed 
to  Abraham  the  purchase  which  belonged  to  Jacob  ?     We 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  517 

think  not;  because,  in  all  probability,  Abraham  was  the 
original  purchaser  of  the  same  land  afterwards  purchased  by 
Jacob,  and  this  fact  was  known  to  Stephen.  The  evidence 
is  as  follows  :  The  land  about  Shechem  was  already  occupied 
(Gen.  xii.  6,  7)  when  Abraham  built  an  altar  there.  There 
were  but  three  ways  in  which  he  could  have  done  this :  he 
must  either  have  built  it  on  the  Shechemites'  land,  by  their 
sufferance  —  an  unlikely  procedure  for  Abraham,  and  one 
giving  no  security  for  the  sacredness  of  the  altar ;  or  he  must 
have  taken  it  by  violence,  which  is  improbable  in  the  extreme ; 
or,  finally,  he  must  have  purchased  it,  which  it  is  reasonable 
to  suppose  he  did.  A  century  or  more  later  Jacob  came  to 
the  same  place,  and  also  wished  to  build  an  altar,  presumably 
on  the  site  of  his  grandfather's.  But  the  land  being  occupied, 
this  field  would  not  have  been  left  so  long  unoccupied,  and 
Jacob  doubtless  found  it  in  some  one's  possession.  If  he  would 
reclaim  it,  it  must  be  either  by  his  sword,  or  by  a  fresh  pur- 
chase. No  one  familiar  with  Jacob's  character  can  doubt  his 
choice,  and  his  purchase  is  recorded.  The  facts,  however, 
make  it  probable  that  Abraham  had  purchased  it  before,  and 
hence  that  Stephen  was  right-  Some  other  minor  points  in 
this  speech,  which  cannot  be  considered  here,  are  satisfac- 
torily solved,  if  carefully  considered.  The  two  noticed, 
which  are  the  most  difficult,  may  serve  for  examples  of  all. 

There  are  also  inaccuracies  in  the  New  Testament  quota- 
tions from  the  Old.  When  these  do  not  affect  the  substance 
of  the  quotation  it  is  enough  to  say  that,  as  the  case  may  be, 
the  quotation  is  from  the  Septuagint,  the  version  in  common 
use,  without  stopping  to  criticise  it,  or  is  freely  translated  from 
the  original,  or  even  sometimes  is  loosely  quoted  from  memory. 
But  there  are  cases  in  which  the  Septuagint  is  quoted  when  it 
differs  in  an  important  point  from  the  original.  The  most 
striking  instance  is  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (x.  5)  : 
"  Sacrifice  and  burnt-offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body 
hast  thou  prepared  me."  It  is  notorious  that  the  word 
'•body"  is  not  in  the  original,  and  is  quoted  from  the  Septua- 
gint.   If  this  were  an  unimportant  word,  it  would  attract  no 


518  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

attention,  because  it  would  not  have  been  worth  the  writer's 
while  to  go  out  of  the  way  to  correct  it ;  but  as  the  discourse 
is  of  Christ's  atonement,  at  first  sight  this  word  seems  very 
important.  But  a  closer  examination  shows  that  the  whole 
stress  of  the  passage  and  the  whole  argument  from  the  quo- 
tation rests  upon  Christ's  having  come  to  do  the  Father's 
will.  The  contrast  is  drawn  between  the  imperfect  way  of 
removing  sins  by  the  sacrifices  of  old,  and  the  perfect  way 
through  Christ's  obedience.  The  word  "  body  "  was  so  en- 
tirely immaterial  to  the  argument  that,  in  summing  up,  the 
quotation  is  repeated  to  clinch  the  conclusion,  but  without 
the  clause  containing  this  word. 

This  instance  closely  connects  itself  with  alleged  errors  of 
reasoning.  Our  Lord  himself  and  his  apostles  also  reason 
largely  from  the  Old  Testament.  This  is  the  only  authority 
which  Christ  recognizes  at  all ;  and  while  he  subordinates 
even  this  to  his  own  teaching,  he  yet  bases  arguments  upon 
its  language,  and  positively  declares,  "  One  jot  or  one  tittle 
shall  in  nowise  pass  from  the  law  until  all  be  fulfilled." 
The  apostles  everywhere  assume  that  the  Old  Testament  was 
accepted  as  a  matter  of  course  with  Christianity ;  and  even 
with  heathen  converts  (as  e.g.  the  Galatians)  they  reason 
from  Old  Testament  types  and  shadows  to  Christian  verities. 
It  is  asserted  that  some  of  this  reasoning  is  illogical  and  in- 
consequential, is  fashioned  after  the  rabbinical  methods  of 
argument,  and  is  a  clear  case  of  the  human  element,  unre- 
strained and  uncontrolled,  coming  to  the  surface  in  the  word 
of  God. 

A  full  answer  to  this  allegation  could  only  be  made  by  a 
careful  examination  of  every  passage  by  which  it  is  thought 
to  be  sustained.  This  is  impossible  within  our  limits ;  but, 
as  in  other  cases,  a  few  of  the  more  difficult  instances  may 
be  taken  as  examples  of  the  rest.  The  arguments  in  question 
are  chiefly  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  in  that  to  the  Hebrews, 
if  that  be  the  work  of  a  different  author.  It  is  admitted  that 
the  writer  was  an  intelligent  man,  gifted  with  no  small 
degree  of  logical  acumen.     His  main  arguments,  too,  are 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  519 

powerful,  and  generally  convincing.  The  question  is  about 
some  minor  details,  which  were  satisfactory  enough  to  his 
contemporaries,  but  which  are  now  criticised  as  resting  upon 
a  faulty  exegesis  of  the  passages  quoted,  while  the  reasoning 
based  upon  them  is  said  to  savor  of  rabbinical  subtlety,  rather 
than  of  manly  and  fair  argument.  These  are  sometimes  de- 
fended on  the  ground  of  the  lawfulness  of  the  arg-unientwn 
ad  hominem;  but  this  is  hardly  satisfactory.  Either  the 
reasoning  must  be  shown  to  be  fair,  and  based  upon  sound 
premises,  or  else  it  must  be  recognized  as  the  result  of  the 
imperfection  of  the  human  writers,  which  inspiration  has  not 
controlled  sufficiently  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  error 
into  the  Scriptures.  The  latter  alternative  may  seem,  at  first 
sight,  the  easiest ;  but  we  are  not  entitled  to  adopt  it  until 
some  case  can  be  pointed  out  in  which  it  is  clearly  required. 
The  a  priori  presumption  must  always  be  against  it  in  books 
which  confessedly  contain  so  much  of  the  divine  teaching. 
The  most  frequently  cited  instances  are  one  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  and  two  in  that  to  the  Galatians.  If  all  these 
shall  be  found  on  examination  to  be  sound  arguments,  without 
the  aid  of  rabbinical  casuistry,  other  alleged  instances  will 
still  more  readily  yield  before  a  fair  and  careful  examination. 
The  case  referred  to  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  that 
in  which  the  superiority  of  the  Melchisedecan  to  the  Aaronic 
priesthood  is  shown  by  Abraham's  payment  of  tithes  to 
Melchisedec  (Heb.  vii.  4-10).  The  argument  here  we  un- 
derstand to  be  this  :  All  spiritual  authority  is  from  God, 
and  there  can  be  no  disturbance  of  the  relations  he  has 
established.  He  gave  certain  blessings  and  privileges  to 
Melchisedec,  and  also  certain  ones  to  Abraham  and  his  de- 
scendants. The  relation  which  existed  between  these  two 
must  continue  in  after  ages  to  be  the  relation  between 
those  who  draw  their  authority  from  them  respectively. 
Now,  Abraham  recognized  the  spiritual  superiority  of  Mel- 
chisedec ;  therefore  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  priest- 
hood derived  from  Melchisedec  must  be  superior  to  that 
derived  from  Abraham.    Incidentally  the  author  remarks, 


520  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

"  And  (as  I  may  so  say)  Levi  also,  who  receiveth  tithes, 
paid  tithes  in  Abraham  ;  for  he  was  yet  in  the  loins  of 
bis  father  when  Melchisedec  met  him " ;  but  this  is  an 
illustration,  not  an  argument,  and  even  as  illustration  is 
qualified  by  the  "  as  I  may  so  say."  The  assumption  of  a 
fallacy  here  rests  upon  the  supposition  that  the  argument 
culminates  in  this  clause ;  whereas  it  is  complete  without  it, 
except  as  this  points  the  fact  that  Levi  was  descended  from 
Abraham.  The  only  flaw  in  the  argument  as  it  stands  is 
met  by  the  author  a  little  farther  on.  It  might  be  that  the 
Levitical  priesthood,  being  expressly  established  by  God,  had 
received  a  higher  authority  than  belonged  to  the  spiritual 
position  of  Abraham,  and  thus  have  been  raised  even  above 
that  of  Melchisedec.  The  apostle  shows  elaborately  that 
this  was  not  the  case,  and  his  argument  remains  intact. 

The  two  cases  in  Galatians  may  be  taken  in  the  order  in 
which  they  occur.  In  the  first  (iii.  15, 16)  Paul  argues  that 
the  promise  made  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed,  rather  than 
to  his  seeds,  must  apply  to  Christ.  The  difficulty  arises 
simply  from  not  observing  wherein  the  apostle's  argument  really 
lies.  Unquestionably  the  word  "  seed,"  whether  in  Hebrew, 
Greek,  or  English,  is  a  collective  term,  and  had  the  promise 
to  Abraham  been  meant  to  be  distributed  to  all  his  numerous 
posterity  it  would  still  have  been  couched  in  the  same  terms. 
No  sound  argument,  therefore,  can  be  drawn  from  the  use  of 
the  singular  rather  than  the  plural ;  nor  is  this  the  apostle's 
design.  He  has,  indeed,  been  supposed  to  argue  from  this, 
and  therefore  to  argue  fallaciously ;  but  he  does  not  do  so. 
He  supposes  some  things  to  be  known  to  his  readers,  and 
among  them  the  nature  of  the  promise  to  Abraham.  The 
primeval  promise  to  fallen  man  was  that  the  seed  of  the 
woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head  —  that  in  the  long 
struggle  with  the  power  of  evil  one  born  of  woman  should  at 
last  win  the  victory.  This  promise  had  been  the  hope  of 
every  God-fearing  man  through  the  long  ages  of  corruption 
that  followed  ;  and  from  time  to  time,  as  at  the  birth  of  Cain 
and  of  Noah,  this  hope  found  definite  expression.     It  had 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  521 

been  still  deferred  ;  and  when  Abraham  was  told  that  in  his 
seed  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed,  he  must 
have  understood  it  meant  that  the  promised  Redeemer  should 
be  born  of  his  line.  It  is  to  this  promise  that  Paul  refers, 
and  it  is  from  the  nature  of  this  promise  that  he  argues. 
The  promise,  he  says,  was  not  to  the  posterity  of  Abraham 
generally,  but  to  this  one,  this  Redeemer,  who  is  Christ. 
To  express  compactly  and  tersely  his  meaning,  he  uses  the 
words,  "  He  saith  not.  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many ;  but  as  of 
one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ."  His  argument  is 
not  drawn  from  the  word,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  promise ; 
and  that  nature  of  the  promise  he  expresses,  as  the  most 
compact  and  convenient  way,  by  the  singular  and  plural  of 
the  word  "  seed." 

The  other  case  is  that  of  the  beautiful  allegory  from  the 
history  of  Hagar  and  Sarah  and  their  descendants,  used  by 
Paul  to  set  forth  the  relations  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  under 
the  gospel  (Gal.  iv.  21-31).  It  is  alleged  that  the  apostle, 
under  the  influence  of  his  rabbinical  education,  has  here 
been  guilty  of  founding  an  important  argument  upon  what 
should  have  been  a  mere  illustration.  Paul  was  undoubtedly 
a  man  who  made  all  his  human  acquisitions  tell  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  his  Master's  cause,  and  frequently  brings  the 
familiar  story  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  enforcement  and 
illustration  of  gospel  truth  (as  in  1  Cor.  ix.  9,  10;  x.  1-11, 
etc.) ;  but  the  precise  question  here  is, — and  this  is  important 
in  its  bearing  on  the  general  subject,  —  whether  he  does  this 
after  the  rabbinical  fashion  of  subtle  and  inconsequential 
argument,  or  whether  the  tendency  to  this  which  might  have 
been  expected  from  his  education  is  so  overruled  and  con- 
trolled by  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  as  to  allow  of  his  using 
only  arginnents  which  are  really  sound  and  forcible.  None 
can  doubt  the  appropriateness  of  the  references  here,  and  in 
other  places,  as  illustrations.  It  is  plain,  too,  that  they  have 
force  as  arguments  to  this  extent  —  that  when  it  has  been 
already  shown  that  parties  under  the  gospel  occupy  the  same 
relations  as  other  parties  did  under  the  law,  then  what  is 

Vol.  XXXVI.  No.  143.  66 


522  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

predicated  of  those  relations  in  the  one  case  will  hold  good 
in  the  other  also.  This  is  precisely  what  is  done  in  the 
passage  before  us.  There  was  in  the  old  time  a  child  of 
nature  and  a  child  of  promise,  and  under  the  gospel  there  is 
the  same.  The  child  of  nature  of  old  was  the  child  of  the 
bondmaid,  and  followed  his  mother's  condition  ;  and  the 
same  is  true  now  ;  the  Jew  is  the  child  of  Abraham  by  nature, 
and  is  under  the  bondage  of  the  law  to  which  he  was  born. 
The  child  of  promise  was  by  the  free-woman,  and  answers  to 
those  who  come  into  the  gospel  covenant  by  promise,  and 
not  by  natural  descent,  and  are  therefore  free  from  the  law. 
Paul,  recognizing  the  historical  truth  of  the  events  to  which 
he  refers,  says  that  they  truly  represent  —  as  they  certainly 
do  —  the  relation  between  mere  natural  inheritance  and 
inheritance  by  promise,  and  shows  that  this  is  the  very  rela- 
tion between  Jews  and  Christians  under  the  gospel.  He 
then  draws  from  this  relation  a  forcible  and  legitimate  argu- 
ment. There  seems  to  be  here  no  ground  for  a  charge  of 
error.  There  is  also  a  minor  point  objected  to  in  the  inci- 
dental statement  that  a  local  name  of  Mount  Sinai  was  Hagar, 
of  which  sufficient  external  evidence  is  wanting ;  but  Paul 
had  himself  been  on  the  ground,  and  his  assertion  is  quite 
as  trustworthy  as  that  of  any  other  traveller,  and,  moreover, 
does  not  at  all  affect  his  argument. 

The  part  of  this  whole  subject  most  perplexing  to  some 
minds  is  in  what  is  considered  the  faulty  morality,  particu- 
larly of  the  older  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  Polygamy, 
slavery,  revenge,  the  punishment  of  the  innocent  for  the  sin 
of  the  guilty,  the  extermination  of  whole  nations  —  and  that 
too  in  bloody  wars  —  by  the  hands  of  the  chosen  people,  the 
success  of  Jacob's  deceit,  the  praise  of  Jael's  perfidy,  the 
spirit  of  hatred  to  enemies  that  glows  in  some  of  the  Psalms, 
—  these  are  among  the  things  which  strike  strangely  on  the 
Christian's  ear,  and  seem  inconsistent  with  the  character  of 
an  All-holy  God.  Do  these,  indeed,  come  from  the  divine 
source  of  the  Scriptures,  or  are  they  the  teachings  of  men 
enlightened  only  to  the  standard  of  the  times  in  which  they 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  523 

lived?  Of  course,  many  things  are  narrated  in  the  Bible 
simply  as  historical  facts,  for  the  morality  of  which  it  is  in 
no  way  responsible.  Immoral  acts,  also,  are  sometimes 
recorded  of  the  saints,  like  Abraham's  deceit  or  Peter's 
denial  of  his  Master,  which  must  be  eliminated  from  the 
the  discussion ;  because  the  Scriptures  in  no  way  commend 
them,  even  where  they  do  not  openly  denounce  them.  Other 
evils,  like  polygamy,  were  always  opposed  to  God's  will,  but 
were  suffered  "  for  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts  "  among  a 
people  yet  unable  to  bear  a  higher  morality ;  yet  the  evil 
was  mitigated  and  restrained  as  far  as  was  practicable  at 
the  time.  So  also  with  slavery.  The  law  was  unable  to 
forbid  it ;  even  Christianity  did  not  directly  do  this  ;  but  the 
old  dispensation  in  every  possible  way  modified  and  reduced 
its  evils.  After  these  things  have  been  said,  however,  there 
remains  much  that  seems  dark  and  inexplicable.  The  lex 
talionis  of  the  Pentateuch  was  not  merely  permissive,  but 
obligatory.  "  Thine  eye  shall  not  pity ;  but  life  shall  go  for 
life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot" 
(Deut.  xix.  21).  How  shall  this  be  reconciled  with  the 
gospel  law  of  returning  love  for  hatred,  and  good  deeds  for 
evil?  Because  the  condition  of  the  people  required  such 
commands,  in  order  that  they  might  thereby  be  made  fit  for 
a  higher  standard.  Principles  of  justice  must  be  implanted 
in  the  mind  as  a  necessary  basis  for  those  of  love.  The 
monsters  of  the  carboniferous  era  must  precede  the  develop- 
ment of  life  in  the  tertiary,  and  that  in  turn  must  prepare  the 
way  for  the  age  of  man  ;  yet  to  him  who  ordered  the  earth 
from  the  beginning  those  carboniferous  monsters  were  good  in 
their  day,  and  we  now  see  no  unfitness  in  their  formation 
under  the  guiding  hand  of  him  who  was  leading  our  earth 
on  to  a  higher  state.  So  in  the  spiritual  development  of  our 
race,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  it  was  necessary  that  God  should 
govern  man  according  to  his  capacities,  and  give  him  laws 
suited  to  his  condition.  Only  thus  could  he  be  advanced  to 
a  higher  standard ;  only  by  impressing  on  a  lawless  people, 
given  to  unbridled  license  of  revenge,  a  sense  of  exact  justice 


524  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

and  of  the  rights  of  others  could  they  be  prepared  for  a 
higher  teaching.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  higher  principles  were  everywhere  embodied  in  the  law 
for  such  as  were  able  to  receive  them.  "  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself"  (Lev.  xix.  18)  was  a  precept  of 
Leviticus,  as  well  as  of  the  gospel.  These  considerations, 
fairly  applied  to  the  circumstances,  will  account  for  what 
otherwise  may  seem  strange  and  anomalous  in  the  law. 

But  why  should  the  people  who  were  thus  to  be  trained  to 
better  things  have  been  made  the  executors  of  God's  wrath, 
thereby  inuring  them  to  deeds  of  savage  cruelty,  and  teaching 
them  to  imbrue  their  hands  with  the  blood  of  defenceless 
women  and  unweaned  children,  as  well  as  with  that  of  the 
warrior  ?  Why,  too,  in  the  judgments  upon  individual  of- 
fenders, as  Dathan  and  Abiram,  or  as  Achan,  should  sentence 
have  been  executed  also  upon  their  innocent  wives  and  little 
ones  ?  The  answer  to  both  these  and  other  like  questions  is 
essentially  the  same.  Men  always  have  stood,  and  they  stiU 
stand,  not  merely  in  an  individual,  but  also  in  a  federal, 
relation  to  God.  This  is  plain  everywhere  under  what  is 
called  God's  natural  government  of  the  world.  People  suffer 
or  prosper  according  to  the  acts  of  their  rulers  ;  families  are 
affected  by  the  conduct  of  their  head  ;  children  inherit  not 
merely  the  fortunes,  but  the  idiosyncrasies  of  their  parents. 
Why  the  world  should  have  been  so  constituted  we  cannot 
here  inquire  ;  but  the  fact  is  plain ;  and  if  revelation  come 
from  the  same  Author  as  nature  we  must  expect  to  find  in  it 
the  same  general  features.  The  institution  of  the  Christian 
church  is  one  great  example  of  it ;  and  whatever  blessing, 
whatever  grace  comes  to  the  individual  by  its  instrumen- 
tality is  in  consequence  of  the  federal  relation  in  which 
the  believer,  over  and  above  his  individual  relation,  stands 
to  his  Master.  So  strong  was  this  relation  of  old  that 
the  prophet  could  say  (Num.  xxiii.  21)  :  God  "  hath  not 
beheld  iniquity  in  Jacob,  neither  hath  he  seen  perverseness 
in  Israel,"  at  the  very  time  when  he  was  punishing  tens  of 
thousands  among  them  for  their  gross  and  outrageous  sins. 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  525 

This  federal  relation  was  stronger  and  relatively  more  im- 
portant in  ancient  than  in  modern  times.  The  progress  of 
revelation  has  always  tended  to  bring  out  the  individual 
more  clearly  as  he  stands  by  himself  before  God ;  but  the 
federal  relation  also  still  exists,  and  anciently  was  much  more 
important.  Nations  existed  chiefly  as  nations,  and  families 
as  families,  and  men  understood  little  of  any  other  relation. 
They  looked  upon  a  nation  as  an  organic  whole,  and  upon  a 
family  as  an  appurtenance  and  a  possession  of  its  head.  When, 
tlien,  a  nation,  as  the  Amalekites  or  Canaanites,  had  arrayed 
itself  as  a  whole  against  the  church  of  God,  how  was  it  to  be 
dealt  with  ?  The  divine  judgment  must  be  made  intelligible, 
alike  to  friends  and  foes,  to  have  any  value.  Men  could 
distinguish  but  little  between  the  individual  and  the  nation 
of  which  he  was  a  part.  Sometimes  there  may  be  such  a 
striking  instance  of  faith  as  that  of  Rahab,  when  it  became 
possible  to  spare  the  individual  ^  in  the  destruction  of  the 
doomed  city ;  but  generally,  if  the  divine  judgment  was  to 
be  effective,  to  make  an  impression,  to  establish  God's  gov- 
ernment of  the  world,  it  must  be  sweeping  and  comprehen- 
sive. The  Israelites  could  not  have  understood  that  God 
was  very  seriously  displeased  with  Achan,  except  his  family 
also  were  involved  in  the  same  sentence.  They  could  not 
have  believed  in  the  divine  detestation  of  the  sins  of  the 
Canaanites,  unless  the  whole  people  were  utterly  swept  away. 
In  this  case  there  was  the  further  object  of  removing  all 
contaminating  influences  from  the  one  people  upon  earth 
whose  vocation  it  was  to  keep  alive  the  knowledge  of  the 
true  God. 2 

But  these  commands  are  sometimes  coupled  with  an  appeal 
to  lower  motives  which  look  like  the  mere  outcome  of  hered- 
itary revenge.     God  says  to  Saul   (1  Sam.  xv.  2,  3)  :   "I 

remember  that  which  Amalek  did  to  Israel Now  go 

and  smite  Amalek,  and  utterly  destroy  all  that  they  have. 

1  But  even  so,  her  whole  family  must  be  spared  with  her. 
*  See  Arnold's  Sermons,  vi.  35-37,  quoted  by  Stanley  in  "Jewish  Church," 
Vol.  i.  p.  283. 


526  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

Slay  both  man  and  woman,  infant  and  suckling."     In 

the  light  of  what  has  been  said,  it  may  be  possible  to  explain 
the  necessity  for  the  destruction  of  Amalek  ;  but  why  should 
an  appeal  be  made  for  this  purpose  to  the  hereditary  national 
sentiment  of  revenge  ?  We  can  only  answer  that  man  is  of 
a  mixed  nature  ;  and  God,  in  leading  him  to  do  his  will,  has 
always  appealed,  and  still  appeals,  not  only  to  the  highest 
motives  of  love  and  duty  and  gratitude,  but  also  to  self-interest 
and  gain.  As  we  are  constituted,  such  appeals  are  a  help  to 
us,  even  now  in  the  full  sunlight  of  the  gospel,  in  our  heaven- 
ward path,  with  which  we  could  not  dispense ;  how  much 
more  to  those  in  their  spiritual  infancy  in  the  dim  twilight 
of  the  law.  Even  here,  however,  the  appeal  is  not  to  revenge 
for  personal  injuries,  but  to  revenge  for  injuries  long  gene- 
rations ago,  inflicted  upon  their  people  as  the  church  of  God. 

It  is  always  to  be  remembered,  moreover,  that  these  judg- 
ments in  which  the  innocent  were  involved  with  the  guilty 
were  purely  temporal  in  their  character,  like  the  consequences 
to  the  ship's  company  now  of  the  carelessness  of  the  engineer, 
and  have  nothing  to  do  with  rewards  or  punishments  beyond 
the  grave.  It  may  have  been  that  the  wife  of  Dathan  was 
received  into  paradise,  or  that  some  of  the  children  of  Rahab 
received  the  doom  of  the  impenitent.  These  judgments  may 
be  likened  to  the  earthquake  which  cuts  off  all  the  inhabitants 
of  a  city  now,  good  and  bad  alike. 

Still,  it  is  asked,  why  should  the  Israelites  have  been  made 
the  instruments  of  these  judgments,  inuring  the  chosen  people 
to  deeds  of  cruelty  and  blood,  instead  of  punishing  the  rest 
of  the  Canaanites,  like  Sodom  and  Gomorrha,  by  direct  divine 
interposition  ?  A  single  example  may  help  to  explain  this. 
When  Joshua  called  upon  the  captains  of  the  men  of  war  to 
plant  their  feet  upon  the  necks  of  the  prostrate  kings  of 
Canaan  (Josh.  x.  24),  the  act  seems  to  our  Christian  appre- 
hension like  one  of  wanton  insult  to  a  prostrate  foe  ;  but  to 
one  at  all  able  to  enter  into  the  spirit  of  the  times  it  will  be 
seen  in  its  true  light,  as  a  necessary  means  of  raising  the 
courage  of  the  Israelites,  and  teaching  them  not  to  tremble 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  527 

before  the  might  of  the  idolatrous  heathen  whom  they  were 
to  supplant.  And  in  general,  the  lesson  of  God's  anger 
against  Canaanitish  sin  could  in  no  other  way  have  been  so 
impressed  upon  the  Israelites  as  by  making  them  the  actual 
executioners  of  his  wrath.  With  the  strong  tendency  of  the 
Israelites  to  heathen  abominations,  it  would  seem  that,  but 
for  the  personal  impression  thus  produced,  there  would  have 
been  no  restraining  them  at  all.  We  do  not  find  that  the 
overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  ever  had  any  marked 
moral  effect  upon  their  neighbors. 

These  thoughts  lead  to  the  more  sweeping  charge  that  from 
Abraham  down  through  all  the  history  of  Israel  they  are  repre- 
sented in  the  Bible  as  the  especial  favorites  of  the  Almighty, 
and  whoever  interferes  with  them,  no  matter  if  he  is  right  and 
they  are  wrong,  is  yet  doomed  to  feel  the  vengeance  of  the 
Omnipotent.  It  is  said  that  this  is  just  what  is  found  in  the 
legends  of  every  ancient  people,  and  gives  good  ground  for 
looking  upon  the  Scripture  records  as  largely  the  human  story 
of  a  nation  who  imagined  themselves  the  especial  favorites  of 
heaven.  This  is  simply  a  question  of  fact.  Were  the  Israelites 
really  in  such  a  peculiar  relation  to  God  that  they  should  have 
been  treated  differently  from  other  people  ?  There  can  be 
but  one  answer  to  this,  if  the  general  course  of  history  as  set 
forth  in  the  Scriptures  is  received  at  all.  Men  had  increased 
in  wickedness  as  fast  as  in  numbers.  The  race  had  been 
wiped  from  the  face  of  the  earth  by  the  flood,  and  a  fresh 
population  developed  from  the  only  righteous  family.  Even 
this  was  ineffectual ;  nor  was  the  confusion  of  tongues  more 
successful.  Man  tended  too  rapidly  to  moral  degeneracy  to 
be  restrained  by  any  universal  discipline.  Then  a  particular 
individual  was  selected  to  become,  with  his  descendants,  the 
depository  of  divine  truth.  He  was  trained  as  a  childless 
wanderer  for  long  years,  and  his  son  also  in  the  same  way. 
Not  until  the  third  generation  was  any  multiplication  allowed ; 
and  then,  when  the  family  was  growing  to  be  a  nation,  it 
was  brought  into  bondage,  and  schooled  for  generations,  first 
under  the  rigors  of  a  servile  condition,  then  in  the  free  air 


528  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

of  the  desert,  and  was  placed  under  a  law  of  minute  detail 
and  of  severe  penalty.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  in  God's 
dealings  with  these  patriarchs  and  their  descendants  he  would 
rightly  have  had  regard,  even  more  than  to  them  individually, 
to  the  part  they  were  called  to  play  in  the  furtherance  of  his 
purposes,  and  in  the  preparation  for  that  great  fact  in  the 
world's  history,  the  coming  of  the  Redeemer.  Jacob,  e.g. 
was  promised  the  birthright,  and  would  in  any  event  have 
received  it.  He  actually  obtained  it  by  fraud,  and  for  this 
was  punished  by  long  years  of  exile  and  many  sorrows  ;  but 
he  was  allowed  to  retain  the  birthright,  because  this  was  a 
step  in  the  world's  progress  to  Chrfet.  Israel  was  again  and 
again  told  that  God's  favor  to  them  was  not  for  their  own 
sake,  for  they  were  a  "  stiff-necked  and  rebellious  people," 
but  for  the  sake  of  God's  great  name.  Their  sins  are  con- 
tinually recorded,  as  well  as  their  punishments.  All  this  is 
unknown  in  the  legends  of  other  ancient  people ;  there  is 
nothing  in  ancient  history  like  it.  If  these  were  human 
records,  they  would  be  like  others.  Because  they  are  not, 
and  because  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Israelites  had  been  made 
the  peculiar  people  of  God  to  facilitate  his  purposes  of  love 
in  the  redemption  of  mankind,  therefore  this  partiality  for 
Israel  must  be  attributed  not  to  the  imagination  of  the 
human  writers,  but  to  the  divine  revelation  itself. 

In  regard  to  the  so-called  faulty  morality  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, we  select  the  most  difficult  case  to  serve  as  an 
example.  In  the  great  war  between  Israel  and  their  op- 
pressor, although  Jabin's  army  had  been  routed,  there  could 
be  no  security  against  a  recurrence  of  the  oppression  as  long 
as  his  general,  Sisera,  lived.  The  Kenites  occupied  a  neutral 
position  between  the  two  parties,  on  friendly  terms  with  both, 
yet  always,  on  the  whole,  attached  to  Israel.  Under  these 
circumstances  the  flying  Sisera  sought  refuge  in  the  tent  of 
Jael,  the  wife  of  Heber  the  Kenite,  and  was  received  with 
every  demonstration  of  cordiality  and  friendship.  But  vvhen 
the  tired  warrior  had  fallen  asleep  in  fancied  security,  she 
slew  him,  and  showed  his  dead  body  exultingly  to  the  pur- 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  529 

suing  Israelites.  History  has  instances  enough  of  similar 
treachery ;  but  the  peculiarity  of  this  is  that  the  deed  is 
especially  commended  in  the  song  of  the  inspired  prophetess, 
Deborah.  She  not  merely  rejoices  in  the  result,  but  declares 
Jael  as  "  blessed  above  women  "  for  having  done  the  deed. 
It  is  plain  that  the  act  of  Jael  was  considered  by  her  con- 
temporaries as  most  praiseworthy.  They  had  not  yet  risen 
to  a  moral  condition  in  which  they  could  be  shocked  at  its 
treachery ;  they  saw  in  it  only  the  brave  deed  of  a  woman 
who  had  faith  enough  in  the  God  of  Israel  to  dare  the  wrath 
of  their  oppressors,  and  by  one  act  to  destroy  the  nerve  and 
strength  of  Israel's  enemy.  The  commendation  of  Deborah 
in  the  midst  of  this  state  of  moral  childhood  may  be  regarded, 
in  itself,  in  either  of  two  ways  —  either  as  a  mistaken  human 
commendation  of  an  essentially  wrong  act,  or  as  a  divine 
commendation  of  a  zeal  for  God  and  a  trust  in  him,  although 
this  showed  itself  forth  according  to  the  light  of  the  times. 
It  is  so  difficult  to  transport  ourselves  in  thought  into  times 
far  different  from  our  own  that  the  former  has  often  seemed 
the  easier  alternative  ;  yet  there  can  be  no  question  of  the 
general  principle  that  God  does  commend  men  in  our  time, 
and  in  all  times,  for  zealous  and  brave  activity  in  his  service 
according  to  the  best  light  and  knowledge  they  can  command, 
even  when  it  afterwards  proves  that  their  views  were  mis- 
taken. This,  of  course,  does  not  justify  wrong  deeds  when 
those  who  do  them  mig-ht  know  better  ;  but  in  Jael's  case, 
and  in  others  of  that  time,  the  opportunity  for  such  better 
knowledge  was  wanting.  They  acted  according  to  their  li^ht, 
even  as  we  now,  with  a  clear  conscience  and  with  the  appro- 
bation of  our  fellow-men,  do  many  things  which  in  a  higher 
stage  of  existence  may  be  seen  to  have  been  wrong.  Yet  we 
reasonably  expect  our  heavenly  Father  to  judge  such  acts  iu; 
view  of  our  imperfect  knowledge  and  of  the  spirit  which 
animated  them.  It  was  in  the  same  way  that  the  act  of  Jael 
was  commended.  She  knew  no  better,  and  served  God  with 
courage  and  zeal  according  to  the  light  she  had.  May  wq 
never  do  worse. 

Vol.  XXXVI.  No.  143.  63 


530  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [July, 

The  unrighteous  acts  of  several  of  the  judges  bring  out 
another  important  fact.  Samson  loved  strange  women ; 
Ehud  treacherously  assassinated  Eglon ;  and  many  like  deeds 
were  done  by  men  expressly  "  raised  up  by  the  Lord  "  for 
the  deliverance  of  Israel,  and  at  times  when  "  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  "  had  especially  come  upon  them.  How  could  these 
things  be  ?  In  a  less  conspicuous  way,  the  same  thing 
happens  now.  Men  are  providentially  raised  up,  and  go 
forth,  moved  by  God's  Spirit,  to  do  good  in  their  day  and 
generation.  Nevertheless,  in  their  human  weakness  and 
infirmity  of  judgment,  they  often  do  many  foolish  and  hurtful 
things.  Shall  it  be  said  that  the  Lord  prompted  them  to  do 
these  things  ?  By  no  means.  He  prompted  them  to  do 
good,  but  left  the  manner  of  the  doing  to  the  exercise  of  their 
own  faculties.  So  God  prompted  the  judges  to  deliver  Israel, 
but  left  the  manner  of  it  to  themselves ;  and  they,  in  the 
moral  darkness  in  which  they  were,  took  counsel  perhaps 
of  their  passions,  or  at  least  of  their  prejudices  and  miscon 
ceptions  of  the  right.  These  acts  themselves  were  often 
severely  punished.  Samson's  guilty  love  led  to  his  imprison- 
ment and  death,  and  Jephthah's  rash  vow  turned  into  bitter 
mourning  the  very  hour  of  his  victory.  But  there  is  no  error 
in  the  statement  that  tliey  were  "  raised  up  by  the  Lord,"  or 
that  they  acted  under  the  impulse  of  his  Spirit.  The  mistake 
is  in  supposing  that  this  impulse  guided  them  to  acts  which 
were  really  determined  by  their  own  erring  judgment. 

The  more  general  question  recurs :  Why  should  men  have 
been  kept  so  long  under  the  tutelage  of  an  imperfect  system, 
and  have  been  taught  such  incomplete  morality,  that  they  could 
do  these  abominable  things,  either  with  a,  clear  conscience, or  at 
least  without  adequate  sense  of  their  wrong  ?  Why  should  not  a 
higher  standard  have  been  set  before  them  so  clearly  that  they 
must  have  recognized  polygamy  and  slavery,  murder,  revenge, 
and  deceit,  as  in  direct  opposition  to  God's  holy  will  ?  Because 
they  were  not  able  to  receive  or  understand  a  higher  standard. 
The  slowness  of  development  of  the  human  faculties  in  the 
race,  as  in  the  individual,  is  something  in  proportion  to  their 


1879.]  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  531 

value.  Physical  prowess  and  skill  is  earlier  and  more  easily 
acquired  than  intellectual,  and  intellectual  than  moral.  Char- 
acter is  the  hardest  and  the  slowest  thing  in  its  formaCcn. 
There  were  always  sufficient  indications  of  God's  will  in  his 
revelation,  if  men  had  been  able  to  see  them.  The  same 
dispensation  which  tolerated  polygamy  recorded  that  "  at 
first  God  made  them  male  and  female  "  ;  the  same  law  which 
required  an  eye  for  an  eye  also  commanded,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  avenge"  (Lev.  xix.  18).  Under  the  education  of  this 
law  a  fair-minded  man  could  see,  when  it  was  pointed  out  to 
him,  that  its  two  great  commandments,  embracing  all  others, 
were  a  supreme  love  to  God,  and  an  equal  love  to  one's  neigh- 
bor with  himself.  This  is  the  sum  of  all  morality,  and  this 
is  the  acknowledged  sum  of  the  teaching  of  the  old  dispensa- 
tion ;  but  to  the  recognition  of  this  mankind  must  be  trained, 
like  children,  little  by  little,  and  imperfect  commands  must  be 
given  until  they  were  able  to  rise  to  better.  Men  were  very 
wicked,  and  "  the  law  was  added  because  of  transgressions, 
until  the  promised  Seed  should  come,"  and  bring  out  the 
higher  morality  and  spirituality  which  all  along  lay  hidden 
under  its  temporary  educational  provisions.  Now,  we  submit 
that  in  all  this  there  is  nothing  to  show  this  inaperfect  law  was 
the  outgrowth  of  the  ideas  of  its  human  writers ;  if  it  had  been, 
it  would  not  have  been  possible  to  trace  a  higher  law  beneath 
it,  and  it  would  not  have  been  "  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us 
to  Christ."  Since  it  is  marked  by  these  characteristics,  there 
is  but  one  tenable  conclusion  •  It  was  divinely  given  to  pre- 
pare men  of  dull  spiritual  apprehension  for  a  higher  and 
better  law  ready  to  be  revealed  in  its  time. 

There  are  no  other  classes  of  alleged  error  in  the  Scriptures 
requiring  especial  notice.  The  treatment  of  the  subject  is 
necessarily  incomplete  ;  because  the  force  of  an  inductive 
argument  depends  upon  an  examination  of  all  the  facts, 
which  is  impossible  here.  But  the  aim  has  been  throughout 
to  take  the  most  difficult  facts ;  and  if  these  do  not  sustain 
the  theory  that  the  Bible  is  untrustworthy  in  certain  direc- 
tions, because  of  the  erroneous  views  of  its  human  writers, 


532  ERRORS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  [ouly, 

there  are  no  others  which  can  do  so.  It  has  been  attempted 
to  show  that  all  these  so  called  errors  are  at  least  consistent 
with  the  hypothesis  that  they  proceed  from  the  Divine  Source 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  in  many  cases  are  so  inextricably 
involved  with  what  must  belong  to  that  Source  that  no  other 
hypothesis  is  tenable.  The  consideration  of  the  subject  would 
be  incomplete,  however,  without  mention  of  the  way  in  which 
the  Scriptures  themselves  treat  the  question. 

Our  Lord  continually  refers  to  them  as  absolutely  reliable 
and  true.  He  speaks  of  various  details  in  them  as  of  "  Scrip- 
tures which  cannot  be  broken."  He  quotes  even  incidental 
passages  as  conclusive  in  argument.  As  already  said,  they 
are  the  only  authority  to  which  he  defers,  and  yet  he  defers 
to  them  in  their  minutest  points  ;  while  at  the  same  time  he 
unfolds  in  them  a  previously  unknown  richness  and  depth  of 
spiritual  truth.  There  are  points  where  he  has  occasion 
to  change  their  teaching,  as  e.g.  in  regard  to  the  law  of 
divorce ;  but  even  there  he  shows  that  he  only  restores  the 
original  will  of  his  Father,  and  he  proves  what  that  will  was 
by  the  same  Scriptures.  He  recognizes  that  God  had  suffered 
that  will  to  be  in  abeyance  for  a  time,  because  of  the  hard- 
ness of  men's  hearts  ;  but  he  treats  the  law  thus  suffered  to 
be  imperfect  as  not  from  man,  but  from  God.  He  shows,  indeed, 
that  much  of  the  older  Scriptures  came  to  its  intended  result 
in  himself  and  his  teaching,  and  had  no  farther  force ;  but 
this,  so  far  from  making  them  human,  makes  them  so 
thoroughly  divine  that  from  the  hoar  ages  of  antiquity  they 
could  have  looked  forward  to  and  been  written  in  view  of  his 
coming. 

*  His  apostles,  beyond  all  question,  regarded  the  Scriptures 
in  the  same  way.  No  particular  passage,  admitting  of  any 
doubtful  interpretation,  need  be  referred  to.  The  view  taken 
throughout  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  is  plain  beyond  any 
p5)gisibility  of  doubt.  The  Scriptures  are  everywhere  appealed 
to  SB  of  authority  in  small  matters,  as  well  as  in  great. 
Their  Jaistories  are  regarded  as  authentic  in  every  particular ; 
their  precepts  are  made  the  foundation  of  Christian  teaching ; 


1879,]  ERRORS  OF  THE- SCRIPTURES.  533 

their  prophecies  are  treated  as  evidence  of  Christian  truth ; 
and  their  moral  teaching  is  abundantly  urged  on  Christian 
disciples.  We  suppose  that  no  one,  whatever  may  be  his 
own  view,  can  fail  to  recognize,  if  he  look  fairly  at  the  ques- 
tion, that  the  New  Testament  writers  believed  the  Scriptures 
to  be  the  word  of  God,  rather  than  simply  to  contain  it.  This 
belief  we  have  tried  to  show  was  justified  hj  the  facts  ;  and 
if  so,  certain  important  consequences  follow. 

First,  in  regard  to  the  theory  of  inspiration.  If  the  Bible 
is  thoroughly  true  and  reliable  (not  taking  into  account  mere 
copyists'  errors), — making  allowance  only  for  such  imperfect 
statements  of  the  truth  or  such  imperfect  commands  as  were 
required  by  the  condition  of  the  men  to  whom  it  was  given, 
—  then  we  have  before-  us  this  prodigy  :  that  during  the 
lapse  of  many  centuries  a  number  of  writers,  of  different 
personal  character  and  of  every  variety  of  culture  and  posi- 
tion, —  writing  with  such  freedom  that  their  idiosyncrasies 
are  plainly  to  be  seen,  and  unhesitatingly  touching  upon 
every  subject  that  came  in  their  way — historical,  ethnological, 
archaeological,  scientific,  and  moral,  —  have  been  preserved 
from  error.  This  result  could  not  have  had  place  in  writings 
of  human  origin.  Is  there  any  other  logical  conclusion  from 
this,  than  that,  whatever  else  be  or  be  not  the  function  of 
inspiration,  its  scope  included  the  preservation  of  the  Bible 
from  error,  and  the  giving  to  man  of  a  book  on  which  he 
may  rely  absolutely  as  the  word  of  God  ? 

Finally,  in  regard  to  exegesis.  The  interpretation  of 
Scripture  is  an  easy  matter,  if  the  interpreter  may  refer 
everything  that  seems  troublesome  to  the  mistake  of  the 
human  writer,  treating  it  as  of  no  consequence  because  he 
thinks  it  does  not  interfere  with  the  essential  office  of  God's 
word  as  the  teacher  of  religious  duty.  If,  however,  the 
interpreter  must  accept  all  Scripture  as  given  by  inspiration 
of  God,  allowing  only  for  the  coloring  of  the  various  human 
writers  and  for  unavoidable  error  in  the  transmission  of  their 
writings,  he  has  a  different  task  before  him.  He  must  inter- 
pret not  only  in  view  of  the  opinions  of  the  individual  writers, 


534  BIBLE  ILLUSTRATIONS  FROM  BIBLE  LANDS.  [July, 

but  also  according  to  the  infinite  knowledge  and  truth  which 
lay  behind  them,  and  which  exercised  over  them  an  inde- 
scribable, but  potent  influence.  And  he  must  do  this  not  by 
subtleties  and  technicalities,  but  by  open  and  manly  treatment 
of  the  text  before  him.  We  do  not  deny  that  this  requires 
thought  and  study,  and  a  familiarity  with  the  conditions 
under  which  revelation  in  its  various  parts  was  given,  and  the 
circumstances,  character,  and  spiritual  apprehensions  of  the 
people  to  whom  it  was  given.  But  the  study  of  the  Scrip- 
tures under  these  conditions  will  more  than  repay  the  labor 
required,  and  will,  we  believe,  lead  to  the  ever  firmer  and 
firmer  conviction  that  they  are  in  very  truth  the  word  of 
God. 


ARTICLE    V. 
BIBLE  ILLUSTRATIONS  FROM  BIBLE  LANDS. 

BY    KEV.    THOMAS   LAURIE,    D.D.,    PROVIDENCE,  R.  I. 

It  is  one  of  the  favorable  signs  of  the  times  that  so  much 
attention  is  given  to  the  elucidation  of  Scripture.  The  Pales- 
tine Exploration  Fund  in  England  and  the  corresponding 
society  in  our  own  land  furnish  maps  of  that  country  such 
as  never  were  known  before  ;  and  men  who  have  lived  in  it 
give  us  the  fruit  of  their  protracted  observation,  showing 
how  natural  history,  as  well  as  topography,  and  manners  and 
customs  also,  both  corroborate  the  statements  of  the  Bible 
and  illustrate  its  meaning.  The  danger  is  that  instead  of  la 
Bible  theologique  we  shall  have  la  Bible  geographique  et 
pittoresque. 

While  the  exploration  societies  give  us  the  most  perfect 
specimens  of  cartography  that  modern  science  can  furnish, 
it  is  very  desirable  that  the  department  of  Bible  illustration 
should  attain  a  like  degree  of  accuracy  ;  and  every  one  should 
be  ready  to  contribute  to  that  end.     If  he  cannot  supply 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Syrocuje,  N.    Y. 

'■    Stockton,  Calif. 


DATE  DUE 

1 

i^ 

CAVLORO 

ritlNTCOINU    S.A 

